4 ms·

Huh? Every non-compete I've had forced down my throat (I've refused to sign the last several) was specifically guarding against me leaving the company for a com

by enjo 14y ago

Huh? Every non-compete I've had forced down my throat (I've refused to sign the last several) was specifically guarding against me leaving the company for a competitor.

mikeryan 14y ago
Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. Its CA law. From the business and professions code [1]. [1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=16001-17000&file=16600-16607 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&#3...
- lusr 14y ago
  A clause restraining you from engaging in your "profession, trade, or business", i.e. in general, is unenforceable. A clause restraining you from engaging with another party may or may not be unenforceable depending on the details. In other words, nobody can enforce a clause preventing a programmer from programming for company B after leaving company A purely on the basis of restricting competition. They may have a case if e.g. company B contracted company A to do some work and then bought out company A's programmer (e.g. to save money), but only if the contract between company A and the programmer in question has a restraint specifically penalizing this scenario. (Even then, it doesn't mean companies will choose to enforce the contract. I've worked for companies where the restraint was between the companies A and B, and in the interest of preserving business relationships, company A decided not to pursue their legal right to recourse when company B poached an employee from A; the employee did not break conditions of their employment with A as the restraint was between their companies.)
tlrobinson 14y ago
Employers can put all sorts of things in employement contracts to scare employees, but that doesn't mean they're enforceable.

by enjo 14y ago

Huh? Every non-compete I've had forced down my throat (I've refused to sign the last several) was specifically guarding against me leaving the company for a competitor.

mikeryan 14y ago

Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. Its CA law. From the business and professions code [1]. [1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=16001-17000&file=16600-16607 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&#3...

lusr 14y ago
A clause restraining you from engaging in your "profession, trade, or business", i.e. in general, is unenforceable. A clause restraining you from engaging with another party may or may not be unenforceable depending on the details. In other words, nobody can enforce a clause preventing a programmer from programming for company B after leaving company A purely on the basis of restricting competition. They may have a case if e.g. company B contracted company A to do some work and then bought out company A's programmer (e.g. to save money), but only if the contract between company A and the programmer in question has a restraint specifically penalizing this scenario. (Even then, it doesn't mean companies will choose to enforce the contract. I've worked for companies where the restraint was between the companies A and B, and in the interest of preserving business relationships, company A decided not to pursue their legal right to recourse when company B poached an employee from A; the employee did not break conditions of their employment with A as the restraint was between their companies.)

tlrobinson 14y ago

Employers can put all sorts of things in employement contracts to scare employees, but that doesn't mean they're enforceable.